request for local workforce development - colorado county local... · request for local workforce...

Request for Local Workforce Development

Area – Mesa County

Mesa County

April 10, 2015

Request for Local Workforce Development Area – Mesa County

2

LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA REQUEST

V(C)(1) – Statement of Intent

• Please see Attachment 1. Mesa County submitted their intent to request designation as a Local Workforce Development Area on February 5, 2015. The letter of intent was received by CWDC on February 11, 2015 and has been acknowledged by CWDC Director Stephanie Steffens in multiple phone and email exchanges and was on the agenda and presented during the CWDC quarterly meeting on March 20, 2015.

V(C)(2) - Circumstances for the request of designation.

• Vision and Local Control: Since the inception of the Mesa County Workforce Center in February, 1998, the Center has operated as a locally controlled area within the Rural Consortium Region. The Mesa County Board of Commissioners, even before 1998, envisioned developing an integrated, comprehensive, co-located and locally controlled Workforce Development system. When Governor Romer issued the Executive Order mandating the integration and co-location of WIA and Wagner Peyser and thereby creating one cornerstone of the One-Stop Delivery system, the Mesa County Board of Commissioners moved rapidly to develop their vision of a true One-Stop Center by exercising their rights to be designated as one of only two counties in the Consortium to be locally controlled, county operated sub-regions. Although a member of the Rural Consortium, the Mesa County Workforce Center has operated as independently as possible in responding to the needs of the region’s businesses and job seekers in the most efficient, fiscally responsible manner.

• True One Stop Shop: The Mesa County Board of Commissioners quickly combined all of their Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program, both the case management component and the eligibility determination function, the Child Care program, Food Assistance, and Medicaid with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Wagner Peyser (WP) programs. Along with all of these programs came additional partners that co-located at the Workforce Center: Job Corps, Veteran’s Upward Bound, County Veteran’s Service Officer, Ability Connection, Housing Authority and for the first three years, Vocational Rehabilitation. The Center is a division of the Mesa County Department of Human Services.

• Flexibility and Efficiency: The Local Workforce Board has been heavily invested in the success of the Center and in ensuring quality performance above and beyond just the common measures. Per the agreement developed by Governor Romer, as state employees left the Wagner Peyser program, the funding for those vacated positions reverted to and have remained at the local level and were replaced by Mesa County, merit based, personnel which added resources and increased accountability at the local level. While the Mesa County Workforce Center has continued to align with Consortium policies, local policies were developed to meet local needs, and numerous initiatives have been developed independently of the state. The measure of


3

performance, whether Customer Service/Satisfaction or Placements made, has become a very locally driven matter.

• Community Investment and Support: In February 2014, the Workforce Center staff moved into their new state of the art Workforce Building on the County’s Human Services Campus. This 30,000 square foot building was designed and fully funded by the Mesa County Board of Commissioners to further the development of the existing One-Stop model for job seekers and to provide incredible space for businesses to use for hiring events, workshops, meetings and training. The Board of County Commissioners is heavily invested to continuing to strengthen the local control of the Workforce Center and its programs.

• The rationale for seeking designation as our own Federally Designated Workforce Region includes several key points: First and foremost, as evidenced by the original letter to the Governor and the Resolution

passed by the Mesa County Workforce Board, there is a local mandate to seek federal designation.

The ability to develop our own policies and procedures to better serve our customers. Agreements with local partners, such as Higher Education, Human Services, etc., will be

easier to acquire and simpler to administer. There will be opportunity for the local board to negotiate performance measures that

will more closely mirror the economic indicators for the region. Just as the Boulder Region was able to negotiate a much lower Average Earnings standard for both performance look back periods; the Mesa Region will be able to have a far more realistic picture drawn for the area for performance as our own federally recognized region based on those performance indicators.

More flexibility to quickly and effectively respond to local needs of job seekers and employers.

The delivery of services and initiatives will more closely reflect the needs of the community and be able to change without waiting for consensus, understanding or approval at/by the Rural Consortium.

The development of Sectors Initiatives and Higher Education courses will be responsive to our planning region and not be forced to meet those designed to fit for the entire Rural Consortium.

Fiscally, any grants or allocations will be available to the local area without the loss of administrative dollars and contracted directly with CDL&E in an expedient manner.

The Workforce Center will be able to apply for state or federal grants without involving the whole consortium in the process; only the planning region.

WIOA legislation requires that the One Stop Operator be identified and competitively selected for each Federally Recognized Region. Mesa County Region will not have to place the selection, direction, and control of our core operations and partnerships in the hands of a One Stop Operator selected at the state Rural Consortium level.

It is imperative that local control and local program delivery remains the keystone of the Mesa County Workforce Center.


4

The Mesa County Workforce Center has proven its ability to: Deliver high quality services developed from incredibly strong community partnerships that benefit both businesses and job seekers; Develop an integrated, collaborative service delivery model involving Wagner Peyser, WIA, TANF and various other related partners such as Job Corps in a true “One-Stop” model; Garner outstanding local support for its staff and services. Based on 17 years of experience in delivering these quality comprehensive services to the community, the Mesa County Workforce Region has proven its commitment to the Mission of not only the local workforce region, but to the Mission of the state related to Workforce Development.

V(C)(3) Address and explain how the following criteria are met:

• (a.) Consistency with natural labor market areas: Please see the attached report and charts (Attachment A) which show the natural travel

patterns of our customers. We have also provided some demographic information for our Region as well as our surrounding counties since we share both workforce and business populations.

Mesa County is its own MSA and is recognized as a regional leader in retail, healthcare, manufacturing, etc.

Energy has historically been a driving force in the local economy over many years. Companies involved in the energy field, either as a major company or a support industry, house their regional corporate offices in Grand Junction as they provide site development in surrounding counties. The bulk of the workforce for the Energy development in the region comes from the Mesa County area.

The workforce travels between that Delta/Montrose area, the Garfield County area, the Moffat County and the Grand Junction area as they seek employment and are involved in actual work assignments.

Students attending Colorado Mesa University(CMU) and Western Colorado Community College(WCCC)also follow these same patterns.

Please see the attached chart (Attachment A) for a graphic view of this pattern. • (b.) Consistency with regional economic development areas:

The Mesa County Workforce Center is and has been a member of the Mesa County Economic Development Partners; a group that has guided the economic development efforts of the county over the last six years.

Grand Junction Economic Partnership, the Chamber, the Business Incubator, CMU/WCCC, municipalities from all over the valley, are our primary partners in our efforts to deliver on our motto – “Workforce Development is Economic Development.”

Sector iniatives have been developed with input and guidance from the Economic Partners as well as involved industries such as Health Care, Transportation and Manufacturing.

Frequently the Mesa County Workforce is contacted to provide labor market information for specific economic development entities in surrounding area. Employment Services


5

staff are well skilled in EMSI, Help Wanted Analytics and the extraction of reports and data from Connecting Colorado and offer this support to surrounding regions.

• (c.) Existence of education and training providers, such as institutions of higher education and career and technical education schools in the area. The Mesa County Region is proud to be the home of the Colorado Mesa University,

Western Colorado Community College and neighbor to Colorado Mountain College and Delta/Montrose Vocational School. Ms. Brigitte Sunderman, Vice President – Western Colorado Community College- not only sits on the local WIB, but is also very involved with the Workforce Center in developing industry specific training courses as well as working with Center staff to develop Career Pathways and training continuums/ladders. They have also been a key partner in our Sector work over the last 16 years. And as we begin to develop the Manufacturing Sector Career Pathways project, they are again working in partnership with us and the businesses in the community. The Mesa County Workforce Center also enjoys a very strong relationship with School District 51, our single K-12 District. This has resulted in a very strong Key Performance Program, the ability to coordinate career fairs with businesses and graduating high school seniors, and the Executive Director of High Schools, Matthew Diers, sits on the local WIB.

Hilltop Community Resource, Inc. provides on-site ABE/GED/ESL classes and pre-GED exam testing at both of our Mesa County Workforce Center sites. Will Hays, Senior Vice President of Operations at Hilltop Community Resources, Inc., sits on the local WIB.

• (d.) Delivery plan that includes a description of resources that would be available to the area to

provide services. Please see the attached marketing materials and brochures detailing all of the services

currently available at the Center for both job seekers and employers (Attachment B). These services will continue under WIOA and separate designation. Here are just a few:

Fully functioning WIA program – offered through contract with Hilltop Community Services.

Fully functioning Wagner- Peyser program provided by county employees Fully functional state of the art Business Center for hiring events, employer

training, workshops, seminars Assessment Center offering a wide variety of assessment tools such as the full

array of 12 WorkKeys tests, Prove-It tests, TABE, and CAPS, COPS, COPES. Also in our Assessment Center is our computer lab that offers classes in the full array of Microsoft products, including PowerPoint, all levels of Excel, Online Job Search Tactics workshop, Internet/Email Basics and Computer Orientation.

Resource Room - a staffed and full service center providing resume assistance, online application assistance, job search assistance, access to phone, fax, and computers. Essentially all of the tools and support our customers need to be able to research and engage in productive job search and attainment.

Job Corps recruitment


6

GED/ABE/ESL classes Rapid Response TAA Veteran’s Service Officer and Veteran’s Upward Bound Full integration and coordination of Human Services (DHS) programs: TANF,

Food Assistance, Medicaid and Child Care eligibility determination Additionally, on site there is Housing Authority case management, Marillac

Community Health Clinic eligibility, Ability Connection for those on SSI or Social Security, a drug and alcohol evaluator and a Domestic Violence Counselor, etc.

• (e.) Coordination of multiple resources within areas that are based on labor markets and natural travel patterns of local residents The Mesa County Workforce Center was created as a true “One-Stop” in order to provide

customers with a vast array of services in one convenient place as is described in (d.) above. This wide range of co-located, integrated programs provides employment focused services that are designed to remove barriers to self sufficiency for the job seekers and comprehensive hiring and training options for employers.

The location of the Center as well as its Fruita office was determined by a survey of customers’ zip codes and was developed based on convenience for the customer. The Center sits on the Community Services Campus which includes the Mesa County Department of Human Services and the Mesa County Health Department. The physical location of the Mesa County Workforce Center gives it a distinct advantage. That, along with the multitude of other services available through the strong partnerships with DHS and Public Health, essentially gives the Center and customers access to all major resources needed to remove barriers and prepare the hard to serve population for employment.

Public transportation is a key partner in this effort to provide for a convenient site and a transit stop was developed on 29 ½ Road, just between the Workforce Center and the Community Services Building, providing for a “One Stop” bus stop for customers to easily access services ranging from employment, training, health care, public assistance or other family support services.

The physical location of the Center not only facilitates the coordination of multiple resources for job seekers as described above, it perfectly aligns with and positions Mesa County to continue to meet the intent of WIOA which requires a new, deliberate focus on the hard to serve populations. We are providing (Attachment H) to demonstrate Mesa’s performance in comparison to Statewide performance in areas and expectations driven at serving the Hard-To-Serve populations. We are currently outperforming the State in the majority of the categories within Adult, Youth, and Dislocated Worker. This is the intent of WIOA and we expect these numbers to do nothing but improve as we have the ability to identify real and accurate outcomes as our own region.


7

• (f.) Local support of the implementation strategies to provide quality services to employers and individuals by county commissioners, municipal elected officials including mayors and/or city council members, where appropriate, and business or community leaders within the area as demonstrated by letters of support or a vote of support by a city council or applicable board. Please see attached support letters (Attachment C) from:

Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Palisade Chamber of Commerce Fruita City Council Palisade Town Council Mesa County Valley School District 51 Mesa County Board of Commissioners Grand Junction Visitors’ Bureau Mesa County Workforce Investment Board Grand Junction City Council Business Incubator Grand Junction Economic Partnership Fruita Chamber of Commerce

• (g.) Local ownership, exhibited by strong involvement of local elected officials and community

leaders on the Local Workforce Development Board. Please see the attached list of Board Members (Attachment D); take special note of the

membership of our Board of County Commissioner’s Chair representative and the Grand Junction Council member who is also a private business owner. Our WIB members are strong community leaders involved in workforce, economic, and civic development.

• (h.) Local capacity to manage funds, provide oversight of programs and provide for the proper stewardship of public funds. The fiscal agent for the Workforce Center and all of its funding streams is the Mesa

County Department of Human Services which operates on a fully supported and integrated full function accounting system maintained by Mesa County. The Department of Human Service oversees a total budget of $24 million dollars of combined Federal, State, and local funding sources and responsibly tracks and reports on these funds on a daily, monthly and annual basis. This has included the Mesa County Workforce center fiscal transactions for the last 17 years, including the Wagner Peyser, WIA, Summer Job Hunt, H1-B, etc. In addition to the CDLE annual audits that have been completed and successfully passed, the Department of Human Services is also subjected to annual Single Audit through CDHS. This arrangement will continue. Any review of the audits by the CWDC will concur with the statement of confidence in the ability of the Department to provide solid fiscal and programmatic oversight. The Workforce Center Director works hand and hand with the Department Accountant assigned to Workforce Center fiscal issues. All reporting is done in a timely manner and funds are handled expertly.


8

• (i.)Evidence that the area, in the two program years for which data is available prior to the

request, met or exceeded the adjusted levels of performance for primary indicators of performance or the Common Measures and was not subject to the sanctions process resulting from missing the same measure two years in a row, if applicable. NOTE TO REVIEWER: When reviewing Attachment E, successful performance is defined

as achieving at least 80% of the identified Goal for that measure. Please see the attached template for performance (Attachment E). A review of the

common measures for PY 12 and PY13 for the Mesa sub-region will reflect that we did not meet the 80% of Goal, for the required two year period, for the Average Earnings measure for Adult and Dislocated Worker.

In the Mesa sub-region, although we did not meet two of these measures per the above definition, we were not subject to any sanction process. Given the lack of clarity regarding this requirement, we have chosen to fully acknowledge our performance and offer the following as context and explanation as to why. We ask the reviewer to carefully read and consider our reasons and explanation in this section.

Average Earnings for Adults and Dislocated Workers: The primary indicator “Average Earnings” was the one indicator that proved to be the most difficult to achieve within these performance areas. These two years of data show very dramatically the long term effect of the economic recession on certain areas of the state, in particular the Western Slope of Colorado. When evaluating Mesa’s performance in these areas against the two year performance criteria, the entire picture of performance for the Mesa Region must be understood and taken into account. The first issue to focus on is the discrepancy amongst regions which is a direct result of that region’s ability to negotiate their standards: In regards to the Average Earnings For Adults standard, $17,000 was negotiated for the entire Rural Consortium as compared to $13,000 for Boulder County in PY12. In regards to the Average Earnings For Dislocated Worker standard, $21,096 was negotiated for the entire Rural Consortium as compared to $21,500 for Denver County. To rate performance achievement in a pass or fail process when the standards identified and the economic realities between regions are so vastly different, is simply unrealistic and does little to equitably rate true performance, for any region. When this indicator is reviewed in the context of the Western Region, it is clear that neither Mesa nor Western met the “Average Earnings for Adults” standard for both years. The Mesa Region has been dramatically impacted by the downturn in the Energy Sector which has impacted wages as well as the loss of labor force over the last several years. Please see the attached graph depicting our UI rates, labor force and wages compared to the state (Attachment F). Secondly, we have fully analyzed the data related to the lack of meeting these common measures and have found that a driving, uncontrollable, cause was a result of full time jobs in this Region being replaced with part time jobs (Attachment G, pg 4). This trend began as a combination of the downturn in the economy, compounded by the reality that when employers became aware of the definition of who they would have to cover with benefits under health care


9

reform, they began to reduce the number of full time jobs and replace them with part time jobs. These outside realities directly impacted our Average Earnings results, and need to be recognized as significant factors out of our control when evaluating our inability to meet these measures. When analyzing the patterns of performance and practice from other larger single county regions, it becomes evident that if we choose to serve fewer individuals and place them in longer term high skilled training we could impact these two performance indicators. This would result in higher earnings for a much smaller number of Adults and Mesa would have “met or exceeded” the goals. However, for our current and past service delivery, we chose to focus on what is now the intent of WIOA; targeting Hard-To-Serve individuals by helping as many individuals as we can by providing them with the training that is applicable for them to secure positions in our area. Therefore, the total number served is higher and the average cost per participant is lower than the majority of the other regions; both in the Consortium and the other federally designated regions. We believe that our approach is the right thing to do for our customers - the job seekers and the employers. Being able to recognize these local realities, to have the ability to set realistic performance measures, and serve as many individuals as we can is one of the most basic reasons in our request for Regional Designation verses being penalized when we do not meet measures set using a ‘one size must fit all’ process.

• (j.) Assurance that during the two program years prior to the request, the US Secretary of Labor, or the State in place of the Secretary, has not made a formal determination that the grant recipient or administrative entity for the local area has misexpended funds due to willful disregard, gross negligence or failure to comply with accepted standards of administration, if applicable. Be assured that the US Secretary of Labor or the State, has never made a formal

determination that the grant recipient or administrative entity for the local area has misexpended funds due to willful disregard, gross negligence or failure to comply with accepted standards of administration, or for any other reason. The Mesa Region is audited and monitored annually and as thoroughly as any other sub-region of the Consortium, or any individual workforce region in the State. The outcomes of our monitoring and audits are readily available through the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If our ethics and oversight are in question, it would be more prudent for the reviewing panel to seek this assurance directly from the US Secretary of Labor, and we would hope that it would already be known to CWDC and CDLE.

• V(C)(4) The request must address how the proposed new area designation will impact those other workforce areas from which it is withdrawing. It should be understood by any unit of general local government or combination of such seeking designation, that the new area will


10

only secure the formula allocated funds for each WIOA funding stream based on the formula factors as defined by WIOA. If the area in question becomes part of a consortium, the consortium will determine the distribution of WIOA funds within its region(s). The Mesa County Region will be leaving the Rural Consortium, which is currently the

largest Federally Recognized Region in the State. Regarding funding, there will be little or no impact to the Consortium as the Mesa Region

currently receives a direct pass-through of the Administrative dollars. We too were concerned regarding the impact of funding, not only to the Mesa region, but also to the Consortium. We have fully discussed this issue with the Director of the Consortium, CDLE, and LMI. We have been told that if overall funding remains consistent, there will be nominal formulary impact to either Mesa or the Consortium. If overall funding changes, we can all expect to benefit or be challenged to absorb those changes that are out of our control.

Mesa Region is looking forward to continuing the partnerships we have developed with other Rural areas over the years as a member of the Consortium. We will continue to respond to requests from other regions for data, co-development of training opportunities, and policies and practices that help neighboring regions better serve common employers and job seekers alike.

As Colorado’s Workforce Development System moves forward to create an even more seamless, efficient and dynamic program, the Mesa Region is looking forward to being an active independent partner in that journey. We thank you in advance for your attention and approval in our request to be established as our own Federally recognized Local Workforce Development Area.

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

ATTACHMENT A

Mesa County Regional Report

ATTACHMENT A

1

Commuting Patterns-Mesa County

Description Count Share

Employed in the Selection area 56,222 100.00%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 11,799 21.00%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 44,423 79.00%

Living in the Selection Area 55,915 100.00%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 11,492 20.60%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 44,423 79.40%

In-Area Employment Efficiency (Primary Jobs)-Mesa County

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 56,222 100.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 44,423 79.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 11,799 21.0%

ATTACHMENT A

2

Outflow Job Characteristics (Primary Jobs) -Mesa County

2011

Count Share

External Jobs Filled by Residents 11,492 100.0%

Workers Aged 29 or younger 3,078 26.8%

Workers Aged 30 to 54 6,183 53.8%

Workers Aged 55 or older 2,231 19.4%

Workers Earning $1,250 per month or less 2,514 21.9%

Workers Earning $1,251 to $3,333 per month 4,010 34.9%

Workers Earning More than $3,333 per month 4,968 43.2%

Workers in the "Goods Producing" Industry Class 2,834 24.7%

Workers in the "Trade, Transportation, and Utilities" Industry Class 3,217 28.0%

Workers in the "All Other Services" Industry Class 5,441 47.3%

Inflow Job Characteristics (Primary Jobs) -Mesa County

2011

Count Share

Internal Jobs Filled by Outside Workers 11,799 100.0%


Workers Aged 30 to 54 6,030 51.1%








Interior Flow Job Characteristics (Primary Jobs) -Mesa County

2011

Count Share

Internal Jobs Filled by Residents 44,423 100.0%


Workers Aged 30 to 54 24,646 55.5%








ATTACHMENT A

3

County Comparisons

County Job Openings 3/16

Total Average Employment

*Average Hourly Wage

*Average Weekly Wage

*Average Annual Wage

Civilian Labor Force

Unemployment rate 01/15

Delta 251 8,501 $16.03 $641.00 $33,332.00 13,061 7.00%

Garfield 1.042 25,905 $22.33 $893.00 $46,436.00 32,075 4.90%

Mesa 2,365 60,538 $19.63 $785.00 $40,820.00 72,455 6.00%

Moffat 231 4,773 $22.25 $890.00 $46,280.00 **8,092 **4.20%

Montrose 628 13,921 $17.18 $687.00 $35,724.00 18,698 6.70% Source: Labor Market Information, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Program 3

rd quarter 2014 numbers

* Assumes a 40-hour week worked the year round

** Reflects 12/14 numbers due to most recent data

ATTACHMENT A

4

Connecting Colorado Active job seekers

*Active job seekers registered in: www.connecting Colorado.co; a statewide job search engine database used by workforce centers statewide.

Description *Delta County Active Job Seekers

*Garfield County Active Job Seekers

*Mesa County Active Job Seekers

*Moffat County Active Job Seekers

*Montrose County Active Job Seekers

Architecture and Engineering

20 20 142 7 19

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media

22 21 162 6 30

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance

88 115 620 98 88

Business and Financial Operations

24 29 243 11 32

Community and Social Services

14 12 176 19 15

Computer and Mathematical

13 9 163 3 16

Construction and Extraction

234 272 1511 202 201

Education, Training and Library

21 20 159 12 26

Farming Fishing and Forestry

44 31 173 23 37

Food Preparation and Serving Related

108 112 881 109 152

Healthcare Practitioners and Technical

24 28 169 15 22

Healthcare Support 58 41 348 33 48

Installation, Maintenance and Repair

72 96 617 49 73

Legal 3 4 60 5 2

Life, Physical and Social Science

3 9 70 4 7

Management 57 73 629 38 88

Office and Administrative Support

174 218 1670 43 234

Personal Care and Service

33 28 260 25 46

Production 76 48 645 44 85

Protective Service 25 38 201 22 20

Sales and Related 123 149 1087 127 159

Transportation and Material Moving

95 121 919 73 93

Total 1,331 1,494 10,905 968 1,493

ATTACHMENT A

5

Population by Age Mesa County

Age 2014 Population

Under 5 years 9,990

5 to 9 years 9,964

10 to 14 years 9,533

15 to 19 years 9,236

20 to 24 years 11,182

25 to 29 years 10,254

30 to 34 years 10,189

35 to 39 years 8,668

40 to 44 years 8,295

45 to 49 years 8,449

50 to 54 years 10,059

55 to 59 years 10,836

60 to 64 years 10,026

65 to 69 years 8,017

70 to 74 years 5,753

75 to 79 years 4,225

80 to 84 years 3,237

85 years and over 3,336

Total 151,247

ATTACHMENT A

6

Population by Race- Mesa County

Race 2014 Population

White, Non-Hispanic 123,876

White, Hispanic 18,365

Two or More Races, Non-Hispanic 2,505

American Indian or Alaskan Native, Hispanic 1,472

Asian, Non-Hispanic 1,260

American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic 1,010

Black, Non-Hispanic 1,028

Two or More Races, Hispanic 966

Black, Hispanic 359

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 189

Asian, Hispanic 175

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic 43

Total 151,247

ATTACHMENT A

7

Population by Gender-Mesa County

Gender 2014 Population

Females 75,884

Males 75,362

Total 151,247

ATTACHMENT A

8

Population by Age-Delta County

Age 2014 Population

Under 5 years 1,616

5 to 9 years 1,730

10 to 14 years 1,901

15 to 19 years 1,703

20 to 24 years 1,491

25 to 29 years 1,505

30 to 34 years 1,571

35 to 39 years 1,440

40 to 44 years 1,607

45 to 49 years 1,747

50 to 54 years 2,182

55 to 59 years 2,566

60 to 64 years 2,531

65 to 69 years 2,247

70 to 74 years 1,755

75 to 79 years 1,220

80 to 84 years 822

85 years and over 802

Total 30,433

ATTACHMENT A

9

Population by Race-Delta County




Two or More Races, Non-Hispanic 428

American Indian or Alaskan Native, Hispanic 216

Asian, Non-Hispanic 193

American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic 187

Black, Non-Hispanic 182


Black, Hispanic 47

Asian, Hispanic 44



Total 30,433

ATTACHMENT A

10

Population by Gender-Delta County


Males 15,326

Females 15,107

Total 30,433

ATTACHMENT A

11

Population by Age-Montrose County

Age 2014 Population

Under 5 years 2,426

5 to 9 years 2,594

10 to 14 years 2,782

15 to 19 years 2,505

20 to 24 years 1,931

25 to 29 years 2,101

30 to 34 years 2,307

35 to 39 years 2,217

40 to 44 years 2,332

45 to 49 years 2,492

50 to 54 years 2,927

55 to 59 years 3,150

60 to 64 years 3,044

65 to 69 years 2,631

70 to 74 years 2,159

75 to 79 years 1,458

80 to 84 years 988

85 years and over 1,163

Total 41,204

ATTACHMENT A

12

Population by Race-Montrose County










Black, Hispanic 119

Asian, Hispanic 70



Total 41,204

ATTACHMENT A

13

Population by Gender Montrose County


Females 20,899

Males 20,305

Total 41,204

ATTACHMENT A

14

Population by Age-Moffat County

Age 2014 Population

Under 5 years 915

5 to 9 years 948

10 to 14 years 1,012

15 to 19 years 772

20 to 24 years 774

25 to 29 years 865

30 to 34 years 905

35 to 39 years 791

40 to 44 years 717

45 to 49 years 822

50 to 54 years 908

55 to 59 years 1,064

60 to 64 years 911

65 to 69 years 628

70 to 74 years 408

75 to 79 years 251

80 to 84 years 195


Total 13,068

ATTACHMENT A

15

Population by Race-Moffat County










Black, Hispanic 17


Asian, Hispanic 6


Total 13,068

ATTACHMENT A

16

Population by Gender-Moffat County


Males 6,742

Females 6,326

Total 13,068

ATTACHMENT A

17

Population by Age- Garfield County

Age 2014 Population

Under 5 years 4,355

5 to 9 years 4,442

10 to 14 years 4,254

15 to 19 years 3,801

20 to 24 years 3,448

25 to 29 years 4,093

30 to 34 years 4,462

35 to 39 years 4,145

40 to 44 years 4,090

45 to 49 years 3,835

50 to 54 years 3,978

55 to 59 years 4,162

60 to 64 years 3,346

65 to 69 years 2,248

70 to 74 years 1,370

75 to 79 years 906

80 to 84 years 653


Total 58,218

ATTACHMENT A

18

Population by Race- Garfield County








Black, Hispanic 390



Asian, Hispanic 64



Total 58,218

ATTACHMENT A

19

Population by Gender- Garfield County


Males 29,865

Females 28,353

Total 58,218

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment H

Mesa ‐ WIA Hard‐to‐Serve Populations(Numbers shown as %'ages)

4/1/12 ‐ 3/31/13 4/1/13 ‐ 3/31/14 4/1/14 ‐ 3/31/15Adult Mesa Statewide Mesa Statewide Mesa Statewide

Not High School Graduate 0.6 3.2 ‐ 2.7 1.6 3.4 WIA Low Income 87.9 52.8 78.7 53.5 73.5 53.4 Offender 15.2 9.1 14.7 7.9 17.8 11.1 Single Parent 33.3 18.4 27.9 18.6 28.6 17.0 Veteran 3.6 9.2 5.1 11.0 4.3 8.9 WIA Other Assistance 53.9 25.5 33.1 24.1 37.3 25.5

YouthWIA Out of School 72.7 58.8 74.7 57.5 49.3 58.7 H.S. Dropout 49.4 31.9 50.7 28.4 23.3 29.2 Offender 18.2 16.2 18.7 14.2 11.0 12.4 Pregant/Parenting Youth 31.2 19.4 34.7 16.4 28.8 14.9 Basic Skills Deficient 33.8 52.6 30.7 54.9 28.8 52.4

Dislocated WorkerUI Exhaustee 2.9 3.1 1.9 3.9 3.6 8.6 Single Parent 17.1 15.5 7.4 13.2 20.0 13.9 Veteran 17.1 13.0 5.6 16.3 7.3 14.6 Displaced Homemaker 7.1 2.3 5.6 1.8 10.9 2.7

March 19, 2015

Ms. Toya Paynter, Chair

Colorado Workforce Development Council

633 17th Street, Suite 1200

Denver, CO 80202

Ms. Stephanie Steffens, Director

Colorado Workforce Development Council

633 17th Street, Suite 1200

Denver, CO 80202

Dear Chair Paynter and Director Steffens:

The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce would like to add our support to Mesa County’s

request for designation as its own Federally Recognized Workforce Region.

We have worked with the Mesa County Workforce Center on a variety of projects related to current

and future workforce development over the years as they provided comprehensive services to both

job seekers and employers. Their high level of quality service has made a very positive impact upon

our community. And they are a key partner in economic development efforts in the Region;

providing a skilled and trained workforce that meets the needs of businesses now and into the future.

This designation will provide them with the opportunity to expand their service delivery, maximize

their funding and continue to create a true “One Stop” Workforce Center. As the most integrated and

comprehensive Workforce Center in the state, the Mesa County Workforce Center is truly a model

for implementing the new federal legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The

Workforce Center has earned its designation as a Workforce Region through its performance,

community support and its model delivery of services.

Thank you for this opportunity to show our support of the Mesa County Workforce Center and for

your consideration of their request for designation. If you have any questions concerning this letter,

please contact me. .

Sincerely,

Diane Schwenke

President/CEO

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

March 20, 2015 Ms. Toya Paynter, Chair Colorado Workforce Development Council 633 17th Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Ms. Stephanie Steffens, Director Colorado Workforce Development Council 633 17th Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Chair Paynter and Director Steffens: The Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP) is please to provide this support letter for Mesa County's request for designation as its own Federally Recognized Workforce Region. GJEP is a nonprofit economic development organization that represents the entirety of Mesa County, Colorado. The mission of the organization is to enhance the economic vitality of our community creating a strong, diverse economy and an improved quality of life. We have worked with the Mesa County Workforce Center over the years as they provided comprehensive services to both job seekers and employers. Their high level of quality service has made a very positive impact upon our community. Additionally, they are a key component of the economic development efforts in the region; providing a skilled and trained workforce that meets the needs of businesses now and into the future. This designation will provide them with the opportunity to expand their service delivery, maximize their funding and continue to create a true "One Stop" Workforce Center. As the most integrated and comprehensive Workforce Center in the state, the Mesa County Workforce Center is truly a model for implementing the new federal legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The Workforce Center has earned its designation as a Workforce Region through its performance, community support and its model delivery of services. The GJEP Board of Directors met on Wednesday, March 18, 2015. The formal vote of support for this request was made at this meeting. I have attached the minutes reflecting board action. Thank you for this opportunity to show our support of the Mesa County Workforce Center and for your consideration of their request for designation. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you require anything further. Best, Kelly Flenniken Executive Director

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

March 18, 2015 GJEP Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2

MINUTES OF THE

GRAND JUNCTION ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18TH , 2015

GJEP BOARD ROOM, 122 N 6TH STREET, GRAND JUNCTION

PRESIDING: Tim Foster, Chair

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Benton, Clark Atkinson, Fred Eggleston, Ed Forsman, Teri

Cavanagh, Andy Daly, Craig Glogowski, Theresa High, Michael

McBride, Rose Pugliese, Sam Susuras, Tom Benton, Angelina

Salazar

MEMBERS ABSENT: Randall Cupp, Steve ErkenBrack, Tim Fry, Denny Granum,

Jamie Hamilton, Sandy Kent, Jeff Kirtland, Jay Seaton, Mike

Stahl

STAFF PRESENT: Kelly Flenniken, Steve Jozefczyk, Laura Peters

GUESTS PRESENT: Barbara Traylor-Smith

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Tim Foster called the meeting to order at 7:31 a.m.

II. ACTION: APPROVAL OF JANUARY 2015 BOARD MEETING MINUTES

Ed Forsman made the motion to approve the board minutes. Andy Daly

seconded the motion to approve the minutes. All in favor; none opposed. Motion

passed.

III. ACTION: APPROVAL OF NEW BOARD MEMBER – ANGELINA SALAZAR

Teri Cavanagh made the motion to approve Angelina as a new GJEP board

member. Sam Susuras seconded the motion. All in favor, none opposed. Motion

passed.

IV. ACTION: REGIONAL DESIGNATION FOR MCWFC

Tracey Garchar presented to the GJEP Executive committee regarding the Mesa

County Workforce Center being designated as a federal regional WFC. It will

allow for more local control, better administration of grant funds, being able to

more quickly adapt to business needs and the MCWFC already has a proven

track record of being able to be fiscally responsible.

San Susuras made a motion to approve a letter of support for the MCWFC to

move forward with this designation. Tom Benton seconded the motion. Rose

Pugliese recused herself from this vote. All others in favor. None opposed.

Motion passed.

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

March 18, 2015 GJEP Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2

V. UPDATE: FINANCIAL REPORT

Certificate of Deposits – GJEP does have the funds to support the IDI project of

$25,000 if money is taken out of the current COD’s. Kelly suggested most of the

money be taken out of Bank of the West and Alpine Bank’s COD’s as they are

the worst performers, and to leave funds in Vectra Bank’s COD.

Balances increase in February due to the board challenge and the three new

pledges that Team Beef has secured.

L-P Loan – the amendment has been received from the State for LP to receive a

2 year extension. Bud needs to complete the paperwork and send back to the

state to complete this extension process.

Ed Forsman made the motion to approve the financials as presented. Andy Daly

seconded the motion to approve. All in favor; none opposed. Motion passed.

VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

Goals – leads and prospects doing very well. GJEP has 16 more to get for leads

and prospects to meet the 2015 goals. The Outdoor industry only has 5 leads

and 1 prospect to get in order to meet that goal. Team Beef is doing the best in

the board challenge, as the only team to get signed pledge cards (3).

Prospect Update – Steve met a prospect at the OR tradeshow and has followed

up with 2 letters. The company contacted yesterday about what our community

can do for them if they move/expand to our area.

Transition – Kelly’s transition is on its way. The job has been posted on a couple

different websites (GJEP, EDCC, WFC) and will be placed in the Sentinel. There

is a search committee in place, and if anyone else wants to be on it please let

Tim/Ed know. Kelly made a schedule of her remaining time at GJEP and passed

it out to board members.

VII. OTHER DISCUSSION

GJ Forward – How does GJEP want to move forward with this transition

opportunity? Should the GJ Chamber and GJEP share workspace in order to

improve efficiencies and collaboration? The next step in moving towards this

would be to conduct a survey with GJEP investors as well as Chamber members

to get their opinions.

Tom Walsh made the motion to pursue this venue with the executive committee

to take the lead on crafting the survey. Sam Susuras seconded the motion. All in

favor. None opposed. Motion passed.

ADJURNMENT:

With no further business or discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 a.m.

Prepared and Submitted by:

________________________

Laura Peters

Communications Director

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

March 13, 2015

Ms. Toya Paynter, Chair Colorado Workforce Development Council 633 17th Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Ms. Stephanie Steffens, Director Colorado Workforce Development Council 633 17th Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Chair Paynter and Director Steffens:

The Fruita Area Chamber of Commerce is pleased to provide this support letter for Mesa County’s request for designation as its own Federally Recognized Workforce Region.

We have worked with the Mesa County Workforce Center over the years as they provided comprehensive services to both job seekers and employers. Their high level of quality service has made a very positive impact upon our community. And they are a key component of Economic Development in the Region; providing a skilled and trained workforce that meets the needs of businesses now and into the future.

This designation will provide them with the opportunity to expand their service delivery, maximize their funding and continue to create a true “One Stop” Workforce Center. As the most integrated and comprehensive Workforce Center in the state, the Mesa County Workforce Center is truly a model for implementing the new federal legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The Workforce Center has earned its designation as a Workforce Region through its performance, community support and its model delivery of services.

Thank you for this opportunity to show our support of the Mesa County Workforce Center and for your consideration of their request for designation. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact: Frank Ladd, Executive Director, Fruita Area Chamber of Commerce, 970-858-3894 or [email protected]. .

Sincerely,

Frank Ladd Executive Director

mailto:[email protected]

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

Attachment D

Mesa County WIB Roster

NAME Sector Membership ORGANIZATION ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP PHONE EMAIL Buzz Moore, Chair Business Representative Guild Mortgage Co. 501 Main Street Grand JunCo 81501 970 243 1471 [email protected]

Tim Fry, Vice Chair Business RepresentativeEKO Sport Inc, dba Mountain Raicing Products 580 N Westgate Dr Grand JunCo 81505 970 241 3529 [email protected]

Eric Goertz Business Representative CAPCO 1328 Winters Ave. Grand JunCO 81501 970-243-8480 e [email protected] Thomas Business Representative Community Hospital 2021 N 12th St Grand JunCO 81501 970 242 0920 [email protected]

Barbara Traylor Smith Business Representative, City Council

President of Retirement Outfitters, LLC and is a Private Wealth Advisor for Avant-Garde Advisors GJ City Council 250 N 5th St Grand JunCo 81501 970 244 1508 [email protected]

Chris Reddin Business Representative Motus LLC P.O. Box 4704 Grand JunCO 81502 970 433 1238 [email protected] Anderson Business Representative Express Employment Professionals 1119 N 1st, Unit J Grand JunCO 81501 970 242 4500 [email protected] Troester Business Representative US Bank VP 422 White Ave Grand JunCO 81501 970 243 2412 [email protected] Spencer Business Representative Coorstek 2449 Riverside Parkway Grand JunCO 81505 970 245 4000 [email protected] Madsen Business Representative Merrill Lynch 123 N. 7th St. Grand JunCO 81501 970 263 2140 [email protected] Ash Business Representative FCI 3070 I-70 Business Loop, Grand JunCO 81504 970 261 5721 [email protected] Byers Business Representative Grand Valley Power 845 22 Rd. Grand JunCO 81505 970-242-0040 [email protected] Schwenke Business Representative Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce 360 Grand Ave. Grand JunCO 81501 970 242 3214 [email protected]

Brigitte Sundermann Higher Education Western Colorado Community College 2508 Blichmann Avenue Grand JunCO 81505 970 255 [email protected], [email protected]

Rose Pugliese LEO Mesa County Commissioner 544 Rood Avenue Grand JunCO 81501 970 244 1885 [email protected] Shearrow Vocational Rehabilitation Voc Rehab 222 S. 6th St, #215 Grand JunCO 81501 970-248-7102 [email protected] Hays Adult Education Hilltop Community Resources Inc 1331 Hermosa Ave Grand JunCO 81505 970 242 4400 [email protected] Flennikan Economic Development Grand Junction Economic Partnership 122 N. 6th St. Grand JunCO 81501 970 245 4332 [email protected] Maraschin Workforce Rep Business Incubator 2591 Legacy Way Grand JunCO 81503-17970 242 5242 [email protected] Diers Workforce Rep Mesa County School Dist 51 2115 Grand Ave. Grand JunCO 81501 970 254 4802 [email protected] Milligan Workforce Rep IBEW 3210 E Rd. Clifton CO 81520 970-260-6801 [email protected] Keif

Workforce Rep

Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Local #145 3168 Pipe Ct # 100 Grand JunCO 81504 97O-245-2012; C- 773-0966

[email protected]

Tracey Garchar Workforce Rep Mesa County DHS 512 29 1/2 Road Grand JunCO 81504 970-248-2810 [email protected]

William Dowling Wagner-PeyserColorado Department of Labor and Employment 633 17th St., Suite 1200 Denver CO 80202 303-318-8930 [email protected]


tel:970-243-8480 ext. 150







Attachment E

WIA Performance PY 2012 PY 2013 Measure Performance Goal Percent of

Goal Performance Goal Percent of

Goal Adult Entered Employment 71.43% 76.00% 94% 77.50% 77.10% 101% Adult Retention 79.55% 86.00% 93% 84.82% 86.60% 98% Adult Average Earnings $12,141.89 $17,000.00 71% $10,269.84 $16,414.00 63% Dislocated Worker Entered Employment

74.63% 80.00% 93% 72.31% 80.10% 90%

Dislocated Worker Retention

87.04% 87.00% 100% 82.14% 90.20% 91%

Dislocated Worker Average Earnings

$15,241.32 $21,096.00 72% $14,244.39 $18,359.00 78%

Youth Placement 51.85% 68.00% 76% 54.10% 67.50% 80% Youth Degree/Certificate Attainment

88.24% 74.49% 119% 87.84% 69.00% 127%

Youth Literacy/Numeracy 46.15% 49.00% 94% 56.52% 48.00% 117%

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

(Attachment 1 per the PGL)

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment F

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment F

tracey.garchar

Typewritten Text

Attachment G

1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

UI rate 3.2 3.9 9.3 10.8 9.9 9.2 8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

UI rate

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Active 14874 15741 22827 23850 21464 19900 19799

140001500016000170001800019000200002100022000230002400025000

Total Active Clients

Above is a chart that compares the unemployment rate and our total active clients list dating back to 2007. The two charts almost mirror

each other. We can see that as more people are becoming unemployed they begin to actively seek the Workforce Center’s resources

Attachment G

2

Workforce Center Volume Report

Year Total Active New Applicants

Total Staff Assisted Svcs

People Staff Assisted People Referred

Number Entered Employment

Entered Employment Base Number Retained

2007 14874 3555 29719 7343 11704 5134 7258 5755

2008 15741 4243 29272 5918 12164 5832 8090 6832

2009 22827 7181 46043 9118 14620 4692 7443 5956

2010 23850 5209 34733 7966 15149 5894 11097 5159

2011 21464 4102 23708 6190 13306 6260 11452 6846

2012 19900 4038 35549 7090 12443 5315 10344 5946

2013 19799 3416 36759 7226 12171 4146 8642 4728

The above table shows a year by year picture of the volume of clients at the Workforce Center. In 2013 we have had our lowest number of

new applicants since 2007. Our numbers are staying consistent in the majority of the above categories compared to previous years. Our total

staff assisted services were up in 2013 compared to 2012; even though our number of new applicants was higher in 2012.

Attachment G

3

Year Total Referrals

2007 186321

2008 167988

2009 225132

2010 271333

2011 321542

2012 355765

2013 352953

The graph to the left shows our year by year

referral numbers; in 2013 we referred our

clients to 352,953 services. Even though our

new applicants numbers were down for 2013

we still referred over 127,000 more services

than we did in 2009 when our new applicants

reached 5,209 compared to our 3,416. This

shows that our team is continuing to grow in

their knowledge on the services available to

our clients as well as opens doors for them to

be successful.

Our Hiring Events also continue to be a

success for our employers. Our continued

success with hiring events resulted in us

nearly doubling our Hiring Events in 2013

compared to 2012. Employers continue to be

very happy with the quality of applicants as

well as how efficient and organized our events

are.

Attachment G

4

81%

19%

2007

Full-Time

Part-Time

*** Job Central is a nation wide data base collecting openings from employer’s websites and automatically posting them into the Connecting Colorado database.***

The above pie charts show the difference in full-time jobs versus part-time jobs in 2007 compared to 2013. In 2007 81% of

our jobs listed were full-time jobs. That number decreased 30% to 51% in 2013. We have seen a sharp increase in part-

time jobs in 2013 going from 19% in 2007 to 49% in 2013.

In 2007 Mesa County’s annual unemployment rate was at 3.2 %. We had 3,693 new job orders in 2007. In 2013 we are seeing

our unemployment rate continuing to drop and we had 3006 new job orders (not including Job Central job orders). This is the

most new job orders we have had since 2007.

Attachment G

5

The total average earnings are recorded from the 2nd and 3rd quarter. The averages above consist of 6

months worth of earnings. We can see that Mesa County’s earnings have been on a dramatic decrease

since 2011. This is more supportive evidence that although we are seeing more jobs in Mesa County,

the majority are low paying and part time.

Attachment G

6

*** Job Central is a nation wide data base collecting openings from employer’s websites and automatically posting them into the Connecting Colorado database.***

2007 Total Staff Job Web Job Job Central

New Job Orders 3693 2937 756 0

Full-Time 2990 2372 618 0

Part-Time 703 565 138 0

Number of Openings 8660 6989 1671 0



Full-Time 2194 1530 664 0

Part-Time 498 377 121 0




Full-Time 1307 919 388 0

Part-Time 422 294 128 0




Full-Time 1658 1036 622 0

Part-Time 479 300 179 0



New Job Orders 2745 1492 1253 0

Full-Time 2131 1138 993 0

Part-Time 614 354 260 0



New Job Orders 2740 1481 1259 0

Full-Time 2051 1059 992 0

Part-Time 689 422 267 0



New Job Orders 4376 1528 1478 1370

Full-Time 2248 1031 1154 63

Part-Time 2128 497 324 1307


Our total number of job orders for 2013 were 4,376. That is higher than any other year. Part of this is due to Job Central jobs which was new to us in 2013.

Job Central pulled a total of 1,370 jobs into our system. The below table is a breakdown of our job orders from 2007-2013. Job Central became active in our

database on June 1st 2013.

Attachment G

7

Employer Relations/Services

Year Employers Contacted Total Job Orders

2007 446 3693

2008 548 2692

2009 354 1729

2010 404 2137

2011 532 2745

2012 1029 2740

2013 1016 3006

Over the last two years we have more than doubled our Employer Contact numbers; our job orders are going

up as well. In 2007 we had about 8 job openings per job order. In 2013 we were at 4 job openings per job

order. A lot of this is due to employers finding better candidates and are able to retain their employees. Our

hiring events are also proving to be very efficient when finding the right candidates, which also attributes to

the lower job openings.

request for local workforce development - colorado county local... · request for local workforce...

Documents